Brooks makes an excellent case that there really is a culture war and what the stakes are in that war. But then anyone who has observed our republic evolve away from the Constitution and toward big-money statism already understands that. One of the real insights Brooks brings to the table is the 30/70 split between the liberal elite that sees free enterprise as tyrannical and traditional Americans who see free enterprise as the only sensible way to assign value to work performed. One does wonder, however, how such a liberal elite could have grown to 30% of society under a system of free enterprise. My theory of how that happened later.
Despite the great value I credit to this book, there are some serious problems. The problems revolve around what the perceived goals of the book are. Brooks' goal is probably to bring about social change. The publisher's goal is probably to sell books. These goals are in conflict. The publisher probably chose the foreword by Newt Gingrich and the back cover featuring Richard Cheney. Those choices make sense if you want to sell the book to as many die-hard Republicans as you can. I am neither liberal nor a Democrat, but I had to grit my teeth to buy a book endorsed by Cheney; and I doubt that many of my liberal friends could get past a Gingrich foreword. So if Brooks wants liberals in the 30% coalition to read his book, he will be disappointed. Whether the liberals are in the academic elite or in the black inner city, they are not very receptive to conservative ideals--in fact neither is Cheney--and Gingrich is questionable, though both wear conservative halos. The gravity of the Cheney/Gingrich endorsement should not be underestimated. This will turn off liberals--and many moderates. And now for the clincher--a Karl Rove ad on the front cover. What could Basic Books have been thinking?
It may be possible to actually induce some of the 30s over into the 70s camp. But I don't think this book will do it. Even though all this social science happiness talk is made to order for the fluffy liberal mind, it also invites the 30 %ers to cherry pick and spin data from the many studies that actually or purportedly bear on this issue. I'm not suggesting that happiness is irrelevant or that the studies lack merit, just that it's soft and easy to contradict. Remember that liberal readers will become defensive long before they consider reality. The 30 %ers are far more ideology driven than the 70 %ers, so the happiness argument will strike a resonance with them, but I don't think it's enough. How about augmenting happiness with some hard data that's more difficult to reject and respin? For example, make the argument that political dollars must come from two sources--either by force from taxpayers or by borrowing. And we are in a position where borrowing for income redistribution does, or will soon, dominate that split. One can then present graphs and tables that show the trends and the consequences on the recipient group. This is an example of hard economic data that is under-represented in this book. One can also talk about multiplier effects that are more limited when the dollars come from government rather than from free enterprise.
Speaking of free enterprise, that is a concept that does not hold much sway with the 30% coalition. Thus Brooks' statement on page 3, "This is a book about free enterprise ..." may not engage many 30 %ers. Brooks' free enterprise definition that followed is far too cryptic, and most liberals will identify the evil profit motive with all free enterprise. But that's not what Brooks means, and he needs to be much clearer about it. Free enterprise includes The Nature Conservancy as well as General Motors (Oops, I forgot GM is no longer free enterprise). Free enterprise includes all the organizations dedicated to climate change, labor rights, gay rights, battered women, GMO eradication, and your local museum of natural history in addition to all for-profit organizations. Free enterprise is any association of one or more people, freely organized with no government or other coercion, to provide some benefit to society, whether or not it's trying to make a profit along the way. If one wants to engage the 30 %ers, one must be diligent in not giving them opportunities to turn away. Allowing them to identify free enterprise with profit enterprise is not exercising diligence. Liberals will be looking for escape routes if they sense such a serious offense to their ideology.
I think Brooks should have made a special case of the PBS-ophiles in discussing the 30% coalition. To the average 30 %er, PBS/NPR epitomizes the goodness, open-mindedness, and forbearance that media can be when it's not being FOX. PBS has captured a special place in the 30-%er establishment by pandering to their ideology. And PBS is not totally free enterprise since it is 20% funded by the Federal Government.
"The Battle" may be the most expensive book I've ever purchased, on a per-word basis. And, Mr. Publisher, would it be possible to devolve back toward footnotes instead of endnotes? They are FAR more user friendly. And also, Mr. Publisher, graphs and tables really are NOT beyond the average reader. I see shelves full of popular economics books without a single graph and more shelves full of popular science books without a single equation. We aren't all as shallow as your Park Avenue studies make us out to be.
And now to my theory of how the 30% coalition evolved from maybe a 15% coalition. The simple, though incomplete, overview is--immigration. The immigration reform act of 1965 changed the way we accomplish and perceive immigration and was the pattern for all the immigration legislation since. The 15% coalition of the 60s also understood that immigrants are more liberal than conservative. The conservatives of the 60s realized that if you want to drive the cost of labor to rock bottom, you do it with immigrants--an ever-increasing supply of them. And an expanding population is not bad for GDP either. The politicians also got to add many ethnic and racial groups to whom they could pander with favors in so many creative ways. So who got to pay the costs of big immigration? The taxpayers for one. And the American citizens who accepted the population growth with pride, being taught from the cradle that the growth of cities, shopping centers, tract homes, and freeways somehow relates to a better life for them and their progeny. But the biggest payments of the costs of immigration were made by labor--mostly blue-collar labor. When's the last time you saw a black auto mechanic, or a black janitor, or a black gardener? We replaced them all with cheaper labor and sent the blacks to live in the inner cities. But that was only temporary since so many of them have moved on to prisons and cemeteries. That was all done by Big Money/Big Government enterprise, not by free enterprise. And it was spearheaded by the liberal elite. Who knows, though, if free enterprise would have done any better.
